Tag Archives: CNBC

Watch Tiger Woods’ last interview with CNBC for a while; different from Bartiromo than Rovell

Posted on by

I’m pretty sure Tiger Woods won’t be popping up on CNBC any time soon. His recent appearance in an “exclusive” interview with Maria Bartiromo was awkward to say the least.

Woods’ agent Mark Steinberg always has liked having his client appear on CNBC. He viewed it as a great way for Woods to reach corporate America.

Last November, Steinberg arranged for CNBC’s Darren Rovell to interview Woods live in Florida. Now Woods gives put exclusive live interviews almost as much as he gives reporters his cell phone number. So clearly Steinberg had an agenda here.

Of course! They discussed Woods’ endorsement of Fuse Science, which has something to do with energy and performance. Note that Rovell said it was “an equity deal” in prefacing a question to Woods.

Rovell said, “This is an equity deal. Would you have done an endorsement deal like this two or three years ago?”

Woods merrily said yes.

Well, Rovell has moved on to ESPN. So when the former world No. 1 went for another Fuse hit on CNBC Tuesday, the interview duties were handled by Bartiromo.

The end result probably didn’t go as planned for the Woods camp. Bartiromo’s first question was, “What are your financial interests in the company?”

Woods danced around the question.

Bartiromo then asked again, “Do you have an ownership in the company, Tiger?”

Woods declined to answer even though Rovell noted in the November interview that he had an equity stake. To be fair, I’m not sure why Woods couldn’t admit he owns part of the company.

Later, Bartiromo tried to compare Lance Armstrong’s situation to Woods’, at least as far as endorsements are concerned. Totally different situation: Armstrong cheated in his sport; Woods cheated on his wife. Armstrong is finished as an athlete and an endorser; Woods still is performing and winning again and getting endorsements.

Woods took out his tap shoes again and danced around the Armstrong question as best he could. You could feel Steinberg cringing in the background. The last thing he wanted was for his client to be dragged into a discussion about Armstrong.

Then Bartiromo asked why Woods wasn’t winning more majors. Woods had to remind her that he won three times in 2012 and that he still has plenty of golf left in him at age 36.

All in all, probably CNBC’s last “exclusive” with Woods for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

Q/A with Darren Rovell: On leaving CNBC for ESPN; ‘It felt bigger’

Posted on by

As any good business reporter knows, the element of risk is a theme in many stories.

So now the tables turn on Darren Rovell. Risk now is a part of his story in his recent jump from CNBC to ESPN.

Rovell had the sports business gig all to himself at CNBC. He also had his own sports business show on the NBC Sports Network.

Rovell, 34, landed many high-profile interviews and developed a huge following on Twitter (now in the 240,000 range). He carved out a nice niche at CNBC.

Rovell, though, decided to return to ESPN (he worked there from 2000-06). Obviously, he won’t be the only sports person at the network. While he will have more platforms for his stories, he also will face exponentially more internal competition. It will be more difficult for him to stick out at ESPN.

Money definitely was a factor in Rovell’s decision (ESPN book author James Miller reports he doubled his salary). Interestingly, for someone who talks at length about the cash athletes earn, Rovell declined to go into detail about his financial decision. I guess it is more interesting to talk about other people’s money.

Rovell stressed this decision is about more than just money. A big part, he said, is the ABC component, in which he will do business stories for various shows (Good Morning America, Nightline, ABC Evening News) on the network.

Ultimately, Rovell said of the move, “I just felt this was bigger.”

Here’s my Q/A with Rovell.

Why make the move from CNBC to ESPN?

I was happy with my gig at CNBC. I loved doing my NBC Sports Network show. It was a dream come true. I love working with my team there.

At the end of the day, I felt like being at ESPN was the right move. The ABC part was the deal-sealer.

How much did money have to do with the move?

CNBC did want me back. I was hoping for more interest from NBC Sports to get paid like a host. It didn’t happen.

I won’t do something solely for money. I’m so passionate about my career. Money alone could never get me to go to a place that I didn’t think was the best for me.

I talked to CNN. I talked to other people. I asked, ‘Do I break out? Do I move away from this niche?’ I decided the answer is no. ESPN and ABC can give me the best of both worlds.

Talk about your niche. Why is sports business so interesting to the masses?

I think a flashpoint came when sports became more corporate. Business became more out there, and people wanted to talk about it. Sports fans want to be armed at the water cooler. When you drop a piece of information, it allows you to beat your friend.

There are so many fascinating things about sports business. It touches people more than most people think.

Your career took off when you left ESPN and started at CNBC in ’06. Why?

CNBC gave me a great TV platform, for sure. The difference for me at the time was CNBC was a smaller place to be, but I could be the bigger fish. At ESPN, I was the geek who covered sports business. At CNBC, I was the cool guy who covered sports business.

CNBC wanted me to help turn up the volume. Traders watch with the volume off. CNBC said, ‘Hey, let’s show sports, but you rationalize it as business because it really is business.’

At CNBC and NBC Sports Network, you got so many big interviews with athletes like Tiger Woods and sports executives. PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem appeared so many times, he was practically your sidekick. Will you get that same kind of treatment/access at ESPN?

We didn’t have a hard time getting people to come on CNBC. Our pitch to athletes and agents was, ‘Come on CNBC if you want to reach the wealthiest people in the world.’

Now at ESPN, Tom Rinaldi will have that interview with Tiger. How do I get Tiger Woods for business purposes? Does (agent) Mark Steinberg say, ‘He already did Tom Rinaldi?’

Admittedly, it’s going to be a challenge to get the big stars. But that’s the challenge of working in a bigger system compared to being a one-man machine. It’s a challenge I’m willing to accept. I still think I can get the big interview.

You’ve become Mr. Twitter. What has that meant to your “brand”?

It’s become a tremendous distribution platform. If all I did was just about sports business, I’d have about 10,000 followers. People like to have something different in their feed. When something happens in sports or otherwise, I’m thinking, ‘How can I inject the business aspect into it?’

When I was at ESPN (the first time), they had so many writers, I used to think, ‘If I write a great story, will it get on the front page (of ESPN.com)?’ Now because of Twitter, placement is not as much of a concern. It’s harder for something to get lost. Going to the Web site isn’t the only place to find the story. If I write a good story, somebody will link to it again and again and again.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. You’ve gotten into some notorious feuds on Twitter. Other people also have taken shots at you as your profile has increased. How do you feel about that?

Twitter allows people to reach out to you. Negative stuff is going to happen. Anything is fine. Anyone who is in the public eye has to deal with some negativity. It comes with the territory.

So where will people see you at ESPN/ABC?

I’m going to be the sports business reporter covering the beat. I’ll be working out of the ABC office in New York, but I’ll be in Bristol quite frequently. ESPN is going to be my main responsibility. I’ll write for ESPN.com, be on radio, SportsCenter. I do intend to be on ABC quite often.

I love to put the pedal to the metal. I go 24 hours a day. The only way to not get burned out is to change things up. The ABC outlet allows me to stay fresh, to stay hungry.

 

 

 

Rovell moving his tweets to ESPN; good move for network

Posted on by

Update: Darren Rovell just made it official. Via Twitter, of course.

@darrenrovell I’m thrilled to have reached an agreement in principle with ESPN. No matter how others bash it, Bristol is truly a magical place.

And:

@darrenrovell  I will also be doing regular business reporting for ABC News, where I will definitely be covering the food & drink biz.

 

*****

Ken Fang of Fangsbites.com had this tweet this morning:

fangsbites I think this is the longest @darrenrovell has gone without tweeting asides from his personal “Tweetcation” two years ago

Indeed, the master tweeter was quiet about the big news in sports media last night. Rovell is leaving CNBC and his show, Sports Biz: Game On, at the NBC Sports Network to join ESPN and ABC News.

It is an interesting move by Rovell. His star rose at CNBC, and he takes great pride in what he’s doing on his weekly NBC Sports Network show.

Yet the hire makes complete sense for ESPN. Rovell, who actually started at ESPN, has made himself into the top sports business reporter on TV. He has an energy and an ability to articulate all the nuances of the various money aspects. If you’re a network that covers only sports, you need Rovell back on your team.

It will be interesting to see what platforms ESPN gives Rovell. Reportedly, he also will be featured on ABC News and Nightline. Along with television, expect him to have a definite presence on ESPN.com.

And Rovell definitely will be tweeting. It’s hard to think of another person who has built his brand more through Twitter. Rovell has generated more than 218,000 followers thanks to more than 30,000 tweets.

Rovell uses the medium to dish out content, insights and often entertaining observations. He will be looking to increase his followers with his move.

After all, 218,000 followers is nothing for a personality at ESPN. NFL reporter Adam Schefter has 1.6 million.

 

 

 

Who needs ESPN? NHL exec: Playoffs validate choice of NBC Sports Network

Posted on by

ESPN’s Vince Doria definitely stirred the ire of hockey fans last week. In an interview with this site, he attributed hockey’s limited presence on SportsCenter to the sport not generating “a national discussion.”

When I asked John Collins about the comment Monday, the NHL’s COO and Commissioner Gary Bettman’s right-hand man for business and media, took it in stride.

“The national discussion definitely is increasing around the Stanley Cup,” Collins said.

Indeed, Collins and the NHL have reason to feel bullish about the first year of their long-term deal with NBC Universal. The move to televise every playoff game on either NBC, NBC Sports Network, CNBC and the NHL Network has produced dramatic results. Ratings soared with more than a combined 60 million viewers tuning in to watch first-round games on either national or local outlets.

NBC Sports Network averaged 744,000 viewers for first-round games, up 16 percent. Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001, when ESPN’s first round coverage averaged 745,000 viewers.

The multi-network platform had an NCAA basketball tournament feel, with viewers switching from game to game. The NCAA comparison went even deeper with numerous overtime games producing buzzer beaters. It happened again last night with the New York Rangers winning an overtime thriller against Washington.

Would it have been the same if the NHL went with ESPN? Probably not. With MLB and NBA games, and the NFL draft on ESPN, the playoffs likely would have been relegated to ESPN2 on several nights, leaving the notion of being second class.

Yep, not hearing so much that the NHL needs to be on ESPN anymore.

Indeed, the NHL made the right move with potential for future growth. Yet Doria, who was ridiculed for his comment, hardly is off base. With the Blackhawks out, there has been zero discussion about the Stanley Cup playoffs on sports talk radio here in Chicago. You’ll be hard-pressed to find NHL discussion outside of cities that still have teams in the hunt. It’s not that way for the NBA.

Also, the league is faced with the likely prospect of having a non-traditional hockey team in Phoenix or the No. 8 seed Los Angeles Kings in the finals. Not exactly the same drawing power as recent West winners: Detroit (2008, 2009), Chicago (2010), and despite being a Canadian team, Vancouver, with its stars and stories, had significant U.S. appeal in 2011. Los Angeles might be big market, but the Kings aren’t the Lakers.

I addressed those issues and more in a Q/A with Collins.

Given what’s transpired, how does the NHL feel about its decision to go with NBC and the NBC Sports Network?

Collins: The thing we felt was lacking from a marketing standpoint was the idea of national scale.

(In 2010), 40 percent of the games in the first two rounds weren’t on national television. None of the Flyers games in the first two rounds were nationally televised. The Flyers were a Cinderella story (going to the finals against Chicago), but nobody knew the stories on a national level. The first time they popped up was in the finals, and frankly at that point, it was too late.

Now we have every game on. We’re able to show the casual fan how unique the Stanley Cup playoffs are. They can see how tough the road is.

It’s been very satisfying. The ratings are up. We attribute that to the way NBC has embraced these playoffs.

Would you have gotten the same kind of treatment from ESPN?

Collins: We spent a lot of time talking to ESPN. There was a lot of interest. One of the deciding factors to go with NBC Universal was that hockey would be the centerpiece of their entire programming (for NBC Sports Network). That’s not to say ESPN wouldn’t have devoted more time to hockey than they did in the past.

But for (the NBC Sports Network), the Stanley Cup playoffs are their focus. They have dedicated all their time to building this platform. They’ve offered us enormous flexibility. They’ve changed their schedule on the fly to accommodate us.

How does the league view Doria’s comments on hockey not generating the national discussion?

Collins: The national discussion around the Stanley Cup definitely is increasing. We hope ESPN will validate it with the amount of coverage for hockey on SportsCenter.

They’ve been pretty good to us in our big moments. They went to the Winter Classic. They’ve been at the last couple of Stanley Cup finals with Steve Levy and Barry Melrose

What we’re working to do is to round out that schedule so that it’s more than the Stanley Cup finals. Now it’s all four rounds of the Stanley Cup.

How does the NHL increase the discussion for hockey on a national level?

Collins: An important step was getting all the playoff games on national television. We checked that one off and go from there.

We’re working to expose fans to our storylines. The power of (HBO’s 24/7 documentaries) is showing fans something they haven’t seen before. Then when you have all the games on, and people discover or re-discover Martin Brodeur or the team aspect of the Rangers. Those stories start to resonate with fans.

Also, we have so many markets where hockey does well locally. In important markets like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington, hockey does better ratings than basketball. Maybe, that will be the case one day in Chicago. It’s another sign of the potential to have (increased) national discussion.

How does the NHL feel about the prospect of having a non-traditional team in the finals?

Collins: Any sport, whether it’s baseball or basketball, would love to have its big markets (going for) the championship. It doesn’t always work out that way.

A lot of myths got broken last year. The idea that you needed two big U.S. media market teams to get ratings. Boston-Vancouver exploded that myth.

We’re seeing casual fans getting turned on to our stories during the playoffs. There are a lot of healthy signs. At the end of the day, the ratings are ratings. If you look at the first year, the Stanley Cup ratings is not the only metric of success. We’ve made a lot of progress, and it’s only going to get better.